大规模英语水平测试中省略回答模式的检验

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Merve Sarac, E. Loken
{"title":"大规模英语水平测试中省略回答模式的检验","authors":"Merve Sarac, E. Loken","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2022.2070756","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study is an exploratory analysis of examinee behavior in a large-scale language proficiency test. Despite a number-right scoring system with no penalty for guessing, we found that 16% of examinees omitted at least one answer and that women were more likely than men to omit answers. Item-response theory analyses treating the omitted responses as missing rather than wrong showed that examinees had underperformed by skipping the answers, with a greater underperformance among more able participants. An analysis of omitted answer patterns showed that reading passage items were most likely to be omitted, and that native language-translation items were least likely to be omitted. We hypothesized that since reading passage items were most tempting to skip, then among examinees who did answer every question there might be a tendency to guess at these items. Using cluster analyses, we found that underperformance on the reading items was more likely than underperformance on the non-reading passage items. In large-scale operational tests, examinees must know the optimal strategy for taking the test. Test developers must also understand how examinee behavior might impact the validity of score interpretations.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining patterns of omitted responses in a large-scale English language proficiency test\",\"authors\":\"Merve Sarac, E. Loken\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15305058.2022.2070756\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This study is an exploratory analysis of examinee behavior in a large-scale language proficiency test. Despite a number-right scoring system with no penalty for guessing, we found that 16% of examinees omitted at least one answer and that women were more likely than men to omit answers. Item-response theory analyses treating the omitted responses as missing rather than wrong showed that examinees had underperformed by skipping the answers, with a greater underperformance among more able participants. An analysis of omitted answer patterns showed that reading passage items were most likely to be omitted, and that native language-translation items were least likely to be omitted. We hypothesized that since reading passage items were most tempting to skip, then among examinees who did answer every question there might be a tendency to guess at these items. Using cluster analyses, we found that underperformance on the reading items was more likely than underperformance on the non-reading passage items. In large-scale operational tests, examinees must know the optimal strategy for taking the test. Test developers must also understand how examinee behavior might impact the validity of score interpretations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46615,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Testing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2022.2070756\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2022.2070756","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本研究是对大规模语言能力测试中考生行为的探索性分析。尽管有一个数字权评分系统,对猜测没有惩罚,但我们发现16%的考生至少遗漏了一个答案,而且女性比男性更有可能遗漏答案。项目反应理论分析将遗漏的回答视为遗漏而非错误,结果表明,考生跳过答案表现不佳,能力更强的参与者表现更差。对省略回答模式的分析表明,阅读短文项目最有可能被省略,而母语翻译项目最不可能被省略。我们假设,由于阅读短文项目最容易跳过,那么在回答了每一个问题的考生中,可能会有猜测这些项目的倾向。使用聚类分析,我们发现阅读项目表现不佳的可能性高于非阅读短文项目表现不佳。在大规模的操作性考试中,考生必须知道参加考试的最佳策略。测试开发人员还必须了解考生的行为可能如何影响分数解释的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining patterns of omitted responses in a large-scale English language proficiency test
Abstract This study is an exploratory analysis of examinee behavior in a large-scale language proficiency test. Despite a number-right scoring system with no penalty for guessing, we found that 16% of examinees omitted at least one answer and that women were more likely than men to omit answers. Item-response theory analyses treating the omitted responses as missing rather than wrong showed that examinees had underperformed by skipping the answers, with a greater underperformance among more able participants. An analysis of omitted answer patterns showed that reading passage items were most likely to be omitted, and that native language-translation items were least likely to be omitted. We hypothesized that since reading passage items were most tempting to skip, then among examinees who did answer every question there might be a tendency to guess at these items. Using cluster analyses, we found that underperformance on the reading items was more likely than underperformance on the non-reading passage items. In large-scale operational tests, examinees must know the optimal strategy for taking the test. Test developers must also understand how examinee behavior might impact the validity of score interpretations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信